Orissa High Court
Sri Suresh Kumar Behera vs The Land Acquisition Officer on 28 October, 2025
Author: B.P. Routray
Bench: B.P. Routray
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A. No.31 of 1996
(From the order dated 14th September 1995 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sundargarh in L.A. Misc. Case No.100 of 1994)
Sri Suresh Kumar Behera .... Appellant
-versus-
The Land Acquisition Officer, .... Respondent
Sundargarh
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
For Appellant : Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. G. Tripathy, A.G.A.
CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
JUDGMENT
28th October 2025
B.P. Routray, J.
1. Heard Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. L.M.
Nanda, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. G. Tripathy, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondent.
2. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 14th September
1995 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sundargarh passed in L.A.
Misc. Case No.100 of 1994.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17
3. Present Appellant was the claimant before the learned Senior
Civil Judge, Sundargarh whose land measuring area Ac.0.52 decimals
in Plot No.3100 under Khata No.310 of mouza-Kutra in the district of
Sundargarh was acquired by the State in the year 1991 for expansion of
State Highway No.10 from Rourkela to Sambalpur. The Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was published on
24.08.1991 for acquisition of land situated along side of the Highway.
The land of the Appellant is an agricultural land in the nature of Goda-
II. The total compensation of Rs.19,500/- was paid to the Appellant in
lieu of acquisition of his land measuring area Ac.0.52 decimals.
4. Being aggrieved with the same, the Appellant preferred an
application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
claiming enhanced compensation. According to the Appellant, his land
acquired by the State should fetch more compensation on the ground
that a nearby land of same mouza was sold as per the sale deed dated
20.11.1991 under Ext.1 for Rs.30,000/- per Ac.0.09 decimals. The
claimant accordingly prays for assessment of compensation in respect
of his acquired land on the basis of such amount recorded in the sale
transaction made vide Ext.1.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17
5. The land in question of the Appellant is undoubtedly of nature
Goda-II, which means it is an inferior quality agricultural land, and
situating 14 kms away from the nearby town on the road side as per the
sale statistics furnished by Sub-Registrar in accordance with the
Notification/Declaration No.47166 dated 21.8.1992. The valuation of
Goda-II land of mouza-Kutra was made at Rs.25,000/- per acre in
terms of the calculation furnished under Ext.B.
6. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 to substantiate his
claim on the basis of the sale deed under Ext.1 of mouza-Kutra for
enhancing the compensation amount by making valuation at Rs.5000/-
per decimal, meaning thereby Rs.50,000/- per acre. It is stated by
P.W.1 in his evidence that the market value of his land was more than
Rs.3000/- per decimal and vide Ext.1, the certified copy of the
registered Sale Deed No.406 dated 20.11.1991, Ac.0.09 decimals of
Goda-II variety of land in mouza-Kutra were sold at Rs.30,000/-. It is
admitted by the claimant in his cross-examination that he had no
knowledge about losing of any land by the vendor of Ext.1 nor he had
any knowledge that whether such land of the vendor in Ext.1 had
received more compensation by virtue of any land acquisition process.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17
7. P.W.2 is the vendor of Ext.1 and he has admitted in his cross-
examination that in several land acquisition cases he has witnessed and
he has no idea about other transaction in that area except the land sold
by him under Ext.1. It is also admitted by him that his land sold under
Ext.1 is 1½ km away from the present case land.
8. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 enumerates various
factors to be considered in determining the compensation amount for
land acquisition purpose. In addition to the market value of the land
prescribed as per Section 23 of the Act, other facts including damages
if any caused to the land owner by partial acquisition of his land would
also be a considerable factor. It is well settled that the registered sale
deed in respect of the land under same mouza to nearby area of the
acquired land would be a great help for determining the actual market
value of the land acquired for the purpose of determining the
compensation amount.
9. In Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr., (2015) 15 SCC
220, it has been observed that;
"23. We would like to point out at this stage the argument of
Mr Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel who appeared in some
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17
of these appeals, to the effect that in the absence of any
evidence of exemplar depicting sale value, the court is required
to do guesswork. In support of this proposition, he placed
reliance upon the decisions of this Court in Trishala Jain v.
State of Uttaranchal [Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal,
(2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] as well as K.S.
Shivadevamma v. Commr. and LAO [K.S. Shivadevamma v.
Commr. and LAO, (1996) 2 SCC 62] . In the present case, as
the only sale deed on which reliance was placed (Ext. PW 1/2)
stands rejected, there is no other exemplar in the form of sale
deed. The learned counsel wants us to "guesstimate" the
market value. In Trishala Jain [Trishala Jain v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2011) 6 SCC 47 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 178] , the
Court laid down the circumstances when application of
"guesstimate" principle is to be applied. This can be found in
para 65 of the said judgment which reads as under: (SCC p. 68)
"65. It will be appropriate for us to state certain principles
controlling the application of 'guesstimate':
(a) Wherever the evidence produced by the parties is
not sufficient to determine the compensation with
exactitude, this principle can be resorted to.
(b) Discretion of the court in applying guesswork to
the facts of a given case is not unfettered but has to be
reasonable and should have a connection to the data on
record produced by the parties by way of evidence.
Further, this entire exercise has to be within the
limitations specified under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act
and cannot be made in detriment thereto."
24. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, and having
peculiarity of the present appeals where there is total absence of
exemplars, we are of the opinion that some increase, but only
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17
marginal one, can be ordered over and above the circular rates
fixed by the government orders. In Land Acquisition Officer v.
Karigowda [Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC
708 : (2010) 2 SCC (Civ) 531] , following pertinent observations
were made by this Court: (SCC p. 740)
"90. ... The Court is entitled to apply some [amount] of
reasonable guesswork to balance the equities and fix a just
and fair market value in terms of the parameters specified
under Section 23 of the Act."
25. This Court can indulge in the some reasonable guesswork to
balance the equity for fixing just and fair market value. In the
absence of any other exemplar in the form of sale deed, though it is
difficult to say as to what extent the actual market value was higher
in contradistinction to the value of land fixed by the Government in
the aforesaid notifications, we are of the opinion that as a thumb rule
an increase of Rs 1,00,000 per acre be granted, in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case".
10. In the case at hand, it is admitted that the sale under Ext.1 is
dated 20.11.1991 whereas the Notification made under Section 4(1) of
the Land Acquisition Act is dated 24.8.1991. It is admitted by P.W.2
that he had knowledge of Notification made under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act at the time of sale of his land. The sale deed
executed in the same mouza nearby the acquired land though is a matter
of importance to be taken into consideration for determining the market
value of the acquired land, but if the said sale deed was executed after
Section 4(1) Notification was issued and if the knowledge of the
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17
process of acquisition to be held in near future was there, then the
importance of consideration of such valuation made in the sale deed lost
its relevance of the purpose. It is for the reason that after coming to
know the process of acquisition of land in near future, the rate and
market value of the land is usually increased to fetch more
compensation. Thus, in the instant case, Ext.1 being dated 20.11.1991,
i.e. after four months of the Notification made under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, the same cannot be taken into consideration as
the basis for determining market value of the acquired land at such
enhanced rate than the sale statistics referred by the authority.
11. As stated earlier, Ext.B - the sale statistics, prescribes the
valuation of Goda-II nature of land at Rs.25,000/- per acre and the
compensation amount paid to the Appellant was determined
accordingly. Without specific materials brought on record regarding
the prospects of the land acquired by the Government and the specific
loss caused to the Appellant by such acquisition from Plot No.3100,
and moreover keeping in view the nature of land along with it's
location, no merit is seen in the claim of the Appellant for enhancing
the compensation amount as paid to him by the authority.
Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2025 10:55:17
12. In the result, no infirmity is seen in the impugned order dated
14th September 1995 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sundargarh
passed in L.A. Misc. Case No.100 of 1994 and the appeal is dismissed
accordingly.
(B.P. Routray)
Judge
B.K. Barik/Secretary
